posted
What happened to the thread talking about the rib and Vivian McConkie Adams? I'm only here every so often... did it break down? It appears to have been deleted.
Posts: 739 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not exactly an ad hominem "attack", which is highly misunderstood.
It's true that she had no ecclesiastical authority, whereas her father was an Apostle.
As to the quality of her interpretations (for which she provided no actual arguments), I was looking for the thread to post follow-up on why they were untenable as scriptural interpretation.
posted
"If ya'll want to bash someone because you don't like their style, start your own thread. I'm done participating in and giving context for intentionally argumentative discussions."
I also take minor offense at being accused of simply "bashing someone" and being "intentionally argumentative" (is there any other way, really?), as if there's something personal between me and Vivian Adams, or that I simply like to fight.
Mormons eat a lot of theological twinkies, largely because they can't tell what they're eating.
posted
The_Monk, It seems to me that the ad hominem was not pointing out that she doesn't have ecclesiastical authority, rather the implying that she, like her father, says highly speculative stuff, and therefore her statements should be taken with a grain of salt. If that is not ad hominem, I would very much appreciate it if you would teach me what ad hominem is (and no, I am not being snarky).
Posts: 467 | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ad hominem does NOT mean speaking negatively of someone.
It says, disregard their arguments because of an irrelevant personal characteristic. "Don't listen to her, she's a woman" is ad hominem. It ignores the arguments, and goes after the (wo)man.
Saying, "she doesn’t know what she's talking about" is not.
If someone makes claims as to, say, the nature of cardiac surgery, one would naturally want to know on what basis they make them, and pointing out their lack of authority or knowledge would go directly to the argument.
Elder McConkie's statements carried weight because of his office. His daughter's statements have no such authority. Saying that her statements are speculative is indeed a judgement on the statements, but it doesn't try to get you to ignore them. It doesn’t say anything about her, nor is it an irrelevant personal characteristic. Indeed, I want people to read her statements carefully, and that's not what was being done. Rather, they sound good to us, so we take them.
posted
For the TLDR, pointing out that someone should be read with a grain of salt doesn't qualify as ad hominem.
Posts: 739 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The_Monk, So if I understand you correctly, using knowledge about a person is not ad hominem if it is relevant (e.g. person talking about surgery is not a doctor), and it is ad hominem if it isn't relevant (e.g. person talking about politics is a woman). It all hinges on whether the information is relevant or not.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
I love having free agency, especially when it comes to my beliefs. I try to afford it to everyone.
Again, Who really cares if someone believes some speculative vein, if it leads them to live a better life--closer to Christ?
Posts: 13016 | Registered: Oct 98
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, Who really cares if someone believes some speculative vein, if it leads them to live a better life--closer to Christ?
The danger of speculative religious beliefs is inherent in our LDS rhetoric. We teach that truth is "one great whole" and that there is only "one true way". Far too often, well meaning members of the church become convinced that their version of "the truth" is "the one truth". GA's are not exempt from this phenomenon.
When another's beliefs conflict with another's version of "truth", it is often preceived that the individual must be "off the path" or "blinded by the craftiness of men". Thus divisions and contentions arise, both in and out of the church. Our often used war rhetoric doesn't help either.
IMHO, it would be much healthier and spritually safer if an honest and open, but respectful exchange of ideas was more cultually acceptable within the church culture. I think this false portrayel of abolute unity and conformity by our leadership does a diservice to both themselves and to the members at large.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like taking offense when none was intended. I tend to go along with the "so what" camp. However, I also see the problem of the believing in the unfounded one true way. Seems, to me that chill pills are the order of the day.
Posts: 10845 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
JLM: Perhaps I wasn't clear but I am for the freedom of belief, not the freedom to impose that belief on others as if it's the only authorized interpretation.
I think we're on the same side.
Posts: 13016 | Registered: Oct 98
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sounds like taking offense when none was intended.
If true, then the belittling of the McConkie family has been completely normalized. It's like breathing now, right? We don't even think of it as being offensive.
Posts: 3369 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Whoa whoa whoa... It is "belittling" to observe that he and she speculated, or were opinionated? Really?
I'm fine with that if that's what it was. But what it actually looked like according to the written word (and frankly that's all we have to go by) was that her being a McConkie was, in and of itself, a reason to dismiss her thoughts. If that was the attitude that colored your statement then yes, that really is belittling.
[ August 26, 2012, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Randy ]
Posts: 3369 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Not everyone interpreted what was written in this manner.
I'm not a McConkie groupie, but that's exactly the way that statement looked like to me. If that was not the intent (and, of course, I cannot insist that it was), then it could have been phrased better.
The virtue of being slow to give offense must be coupled with the virtue of being slow to take offense, else the burden to maintain peace is unequal. I think there is room here both to acknowledge that the statement was not intended to be offensive, AND to acknowledge that it could have been phrased better.
Posts: 304 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether offense was intended or not, Randy has a point. There has been a prevailing attitude here since before I registered here to belittle or shove aside anything Elder McConkie-related, for various reasons. (Pick one) The remarks regarding his daughter appeared to me to fall into the same category. Again, whether it was meant that way or not, when a forum has pretty much set itself up as a " on anything with *McConkie* in it" zone, it's an understandable jump.
I've been slow to take offense at this attitude for over 11 years now. No mas. Kudos to Roper for deciding he would not be a part of the sneering, whether that was his original intent or not.
Posts: 3862 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The anti-McConkie sentiment extends beyond this forum. I've never understood why. From my point of view, McConkie and Packer have an equal like/dislike ratio in terms of information disseminated.
I use that comparison because, also from my point of view, they seem to be polar opposites in their approach to the gospel.
Posts: 10845 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
AntiMcKonkie sentiments are not the same crowd as the antiPackard folks and vice versa...
McKonkie earned a lot of animosity when he published Mormon Doctrine... there were a lot of folks very concerned with its content and its tendency to talk for the whole church without authority.
I remember reading what were supposedly the minutes of meetings with the prophet David O MacKay and the first presidency, as to whether McKonkie would be excommunicated for his publication for assuming to speak for the whole church (he was only a seventy at the time), because of grievous doctrinal errors on every page of that original publication.
The prophet did not even want the book republished or revised, because its tendency to be mistaken as overly authorative.
Packard is not liked by many who live fringe lifestyles because he preaches obedience and rigidly adherent approach to the commandments. He is uncompromising of standards established by prophets, and often takes a lot of heat for being unyielding, but has not (to my knowledge) attempted to define church doctrine for the whole church.
Posts: 13016 | Registered: Oct 98
| IP: Logged |
quote: I remember reading what were supposedly the minutes of meetings with the prophet David O MacKay and the first presidency, as to whether McKonkie would be excommunicated for his publication for assuming to speak for the whole church (he was only a seventy at the time)
It must have been one heck of a turnaround when he was put forth to be an apostle, then.
quote: because of grievous doctrinal errors on every page of that original publication.
Every page? Wow! I knew there were issues, but every page...
Posts: 3369 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:... tendency to talk for the whole church without authority.
That's kind of my only issue with a wonderful, thoughtful, powerful writer and orator. A lot of people don't like that he seemed so opinionated. Well, if I'm going to spend 20 minutes listening to a sermon, I certainly hope the orator actually gives off a vibe that he really does believe what he is saying to me.
Elder McConkie's overreaching got delt with, kindly, in private, without a whole lot of embarassment to him personally (until the David O. McKay book was published, after all the principals were dead).
On the other hand, when it came time for Elder McConkie to correct George Pace and Eugene England, sure he sent them letters. But he also called them to repentance in front of the entire studentbody and faculty of BYU!
That was sort of unkind, given his personal experience, and the forebearance practiced by his personal priesthood leaders.
Now, you can say "well, the church had to know that this was false doctrine, so it had to be called out it public."
Um, okay. Good point.
Too bad no one thought to do that to Mormon Doctrine. There are still people insisting that there are no such things as guardian angels, and citing Mormon Doctrine as backup (That's just one example that is particularly annoying for me, personally. I like to believe in angels that watch over me and others, and you can't talk me out of it, so just don't even try, you killjoys).
Really, what has a potential to do the most general doctrinal damage within the church: a book published by the church entitled Mormon Doctrine or a book published by BYU encouraging us to strengthen our "personal" relationship with Jesus Christ (Pace's series of books) or put forth the thought that God may be progressing in knowledge in a higher sphere (England's pecadillo)?
I'm thinking the first.
FTR, I have grown to love I Believe in Christ. It is a magnificent hymn. If only we could all agree to sing it at warp factor 8 instead of half impulse speed.
And I loves me some Elder Packer. I respect him for taking on the hard topics and addressing them.
But, again, I grow frustrated with members who read For Young Men Only and think we are then entitled to beat up gay people, throw them back in their closets, toss in a jar full of spiders, and nail the door shut. (Trust me, there are those in my benighted little 'burg who relish the thought. They wake up in Elders' quorum only long enought to espouse such ignorant thoughts)
It is somehow lost on many people that the guy in that pamphlet who molested his companion was not a "gay person," but a sexual predator who chose to "predate" on someone of the same sex.
I know. It's hard to get that straight in people's minds, but we must try.
quote: FTR, I have grown to love I Believe in Christ. It is a magnificent hymn. If only we could all agree to sing it at warp factor 8 instead of half impulse speed.
Man, I hate that song. Clunky lyrics, repetative, boring melody and it's always played way to slow. It is by far the dirgiest of the funeral dirges in the hynmal.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hence the desire to play it at Warp 8 instead of half impulse. And SW, I love you for that reference Posts: 1097 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on, the tenor line for I Believe in Christ is beautiful. SW, your post was tremendous and again I wish we had a 'like' button.
Posts: 1460 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I finally loved that hymn after a recent experience of singing it (fast) at a relative's missionary farewell.
I wish his parents had been there. His grandparents were there, and I'm glad they got to hear it (that particular branch of the family is of the "Mormons are NOT Christians" variety).
Really all of the verses are necessary. It talks about The Saviour's mission, His parentage, and His millenial reign.
It is one of the strongest Christian affirmations I have heard. I bet my family wishes they had it in their hymn books, now.
My cousin converted to the church after he was reading the Book of Mormon to prove its errors and debate his "Mormon friends." Oops. Got a testimony accidentally. He'll be a great missionary.
posted
I guess you could say that the church published Mormon Doctrine for about ten years, from the time Deseret Book acquired Bookcraft in 1999 to the time the book went out of print in 2010.
Although the church didn't originally publish Mormon Doctrine, the First Presidency had significant editorial control over the revisions for the second edition.
posted
If you love the book, then great. It's just the implication that those who don't love it are apostates that bug me.
And if something's published by Deseret Book, doesn't make it doctrine, either.
Certainly not the definitive Mormon Doctrine.
The point is we all are capable of learning things from different angles and perspectives.
There's an elderly lady in our ward that most people think is Crazy. She talks about her spiritual gifts, and how her parent's spirits come and comb her dolls hair and comfort her regularly. SHe also thinks her house is infested with imaginary insects.
I have my doubts, but one thing I remember from my Missionary days is that it's not my calling to correct her. Who knows what spiritual insights and experiences another has--if it isn't touted as doctrine that we all must believe, then why should I not allow the lady to have her own beliefs, no matter how ridiculous they may seem to others.
This is the thing I despise about the whole creationist thing. They're so intolerant of other interpretations--and likewise are so evolutionists, that they allow contention to make both parties undesirable.
I can live with not knowing everything. I can live with not really understanding much of anything. There was a time when I was younger when it was really important that I believe I was an expert about at least something... that I had to be right. But over time, it seems like one of the great points of my life was to have those preconceptions and points of unshakable truth, to be broken up and destroyed. Now I find myself basing my testimony on very few absolute truths.
I believe the Book of Mormon is the Word of God. I believe that through Joseph Smith, there's priesthood authority on the earth today, and it authorizes often very flawed individuals to act in the name of God. I believe miracles happen--and that God loves all his children. As such I believe that I can learn something from each of them, if I'm receptive enough to listen. I have faith that the Savior's atonement heals everything we ask it to heal...
Life's full of surprises--one of mine has been how much of the obvious things in life that never dawned on me--while how so many things I thought were certain were simply illusions.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
on anything with *McConkie* in it" zone, it's an understandable jump.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
He'll be a great missionary.
